From: Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com>
To: Michael Dolan <mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>,
"O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
Cc: "moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 29th
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:55:01 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <583F3CA5.7060803@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFV=PSFsFogPcb1CJ9=DhkpJzyo8CePQdGG6kP6S8cv=vaE_yg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Mike,
On 11/30/2016 12:39 PM, Michael Dolan wrote:
> Hi Tim, sorry I couldn't make it with a LF Board meeting conflict
> yesterday. As for 1), most/all of our projects facing this issue decide
> to go Apache 2. A CLA is less preferably particularly with the BSD
> license. Where we do use a CLA on a project it's usually the same as the
> Apache CCLA/ICLA and that combined with the BSD license will I'm fairly
> certain not achieve what Linaro legal is probably concerned about.
A follow-on question: Has the Linux Foundation ever taken on a BSD
licensed project in the past? Given that the project has an existing
history and license, a license change might be a more involved change
(both practically and culturally) than the technical community woiuld be
prepared for.
> Just some thoughts on how other projects tackled this question. It would
> probably be best if we push any further discussion on this to a small
> group of your legal counsel as the various levers have different
> implications and I'm uncomfortable continuing this discussion without
> your counsel being involved.
Hopefully an answer specifically about what has been done in the past
would be OK - I understand you don't want to get into the area of advice
here.
Thanks,
Dave.
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:01 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim
> <tim.odriscoll@intel.com <mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com>> wrote:
>
> Here are my notes from Tuesday's call. Please feel free to correct
> any errors or to add additional details.
>
> Attendees: Dave Neary (Red Hat), Ed Warnicke (Cisco),
> Francois-Frederic Ozog (Linaro), Hemant Agrawal (NXP), Jan Blunck
> (Brocade), Jaswinder Singh (NXP), Jerin Jacob (Cavium), Jim St.
> Leger (Intel), John McNamara (Intel), Keith Wiles (Intel), Olga
> Shern (Mellanox), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel),
> Vincent Jardin (6WIND). Note that there may have been others, but as
> people joined at different times it was difficult to keep track.
>
> Firstly, here are some links to help keep track of things:
> Project Charter:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs>
> Summary of discussion at Userspace event in Dublin:
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/049259.html
> <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/049259.html>
> Minutes of October 31st call:
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000031.html
> <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000031.html>
> Minutes of November 8th call:
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000058.html
> <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000058.html>
> Minutes of November 15th call:
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000061.html
> <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000061.html>
> Minutes of November 22nd call:
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000085.html
> <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000085.html>
> Current technical governance, including composition of the Tech
> Board: http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html
> <http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html> &
> http://dpdk.org/dev.
>
>
> 1. Discussed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) vs Developer
> Certificate of Origin (DCO)
> - Current process is to use a DCO.
> - Francois-Frederic proposed using a CLA. This is based on input
> from the Linaro legal team and some Linaro members who have
> indicated that not having a CLA prevents them contributing to or
> using DPDK.
> - Discussed what benefit they think they'll get from CLA. The main
> thing it adds is patent protection. This could be achieved in other
> ways, for example using the Apache 2.0 license. Neither solution
> would apply to existing DPDK code though so any benefit would only
> apply to new code.
> - Vincent asked if there are problems with other BSD licensed
> projects. We agreed to check with the Linux Foundation (Mike Dolan)
> to see if they have any guidance based on other BSD licensed
> projects. I'll ask Mike.
>
> 2. Discussed comments on project charter
> - Agreed that the Governing Board does not specify requirements for
> the Technical Board to implement. The two boards are peers. One can
> make suggestions to the other at any time, but these aren't
> requirements and don't have to be accepted.
> - Discussed how members are added to/removed from the Technical
> Board. Agreed that the TB approves adding/removing members. Agreed
> that the TB needs to consider technical contributions from the
> individuals and support for all architectures when making these
> decisions.
> - Discussed Dave's proposal for a representative of the technical
> community on the GB (in addition to the rep from the TB). Agreed not
> to do this and just to keep the single rep from the TB on the GB.
> Also discussed whether there should be a GB rep on the TB and agreed
> that this did not make sense.
> - For voting, agreed that the quorum for a meeting for either board
> is 50% of the members. Majority required to pass a vote is 50% of
> the total board except for: a) changes to the charter require 2/3 of
> the GB; b) licensing exceptions require 2/3 of the GB.
> - I've updated the charter (section 3 - Project Governance) to
> reflect these changes.
>
>
> Next Meeting:
> Tuesday December 6th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. We'll
> focus on the comments on the Membership and Technical Governance
> sections of the charter, and also discuss CLA/DCO if we have more
> input/guidance on this from the LF.
>
>
>
>
--
Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy
Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-30 20:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-30 16:01 O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-11-30 17:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-30 22:08 ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-01 9:20 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-12-01 9:40 ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-11-30 17:39 ` Michael Dolan
2016-11-30 20:55 ` Dave Neary [this message]
2016-12-01 17:40 ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-01 17:46 ` Ed Warnicke
2016-12-01 18:01 ` Michael Dolan
2016-12-01 18:41 ` Dave Neary
2016-12-01 18:50 ` Dave Neary
2016-12-01 19:09 ` Francois Ozog
2016-12-01 19:44 ` Michael Dolan
2016-12-01 20:20 ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-01 20:47 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-12-01 21:33 ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-02 9:00 ` Francois Ozog
2016-12-01 20:33 ` O'Driscoll, Tim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=583F3CA5.7060803@redhat.com \
--to=dneary@redhat.com \
--cc=mdolan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=moving@dpdk.org \
--cc=tim.odriscoll@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).